BarrRepublican:and unfortunately it's going to have the side effect of losing seats in the midwest and southeast. In Iowa, you can get elected championing some pretty liberal stuff, but to touch the guns is to touch the third rail in most of the midwest.

Another thing: How come in these gun debates this sort of electoral argument is always brought up as an argument against gun control itself? Yeah, I know gun control is a losing issue in the midwest and southeast, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Remember: roughly half of the people in this country are rubes to begin with.

Mugato:MrEricSir: Hint: when you have to resort to violent revolution, you're not going to follow the laws of the government you're trying to bring down in the first place.

Yeah. No one's ever going to resort to violent revolution but the point is that those who think they might someday need to, want to prepare while guns are still legal.

But no one's going to hold a violent revolution. They just jerk off about it a lot.

Yet the gun nuts continue to make the argument that criminals don't obey the law, therefore laws are unnecessary. Somehow they don't connect the dots and realize that participating in a violent revolution makes them criminals, hence negating the original position.

Mugato:MrEricSir: Hint: when you have to resort to violent revolution, you're not going to follow the laws of the government you're trying to bring down in the first place.

Yeah. No one's ever going to resort to violent revolution but the point is that those who think they might someday need to, want to prepare while guns are still legal.

But no one's going to hold a violent revolution. They just jerk off about it a lot.

The biggest irony of the whole thing is that presumably the violent revolution would be waged to bring down tyranny and bring back democracy.

But wouldn't it be a better idea to just, you know, be civically active and informed and work through non-violent means to prevent tyranny to begin with? You could actually make the argument that the second amendment only makes tyranny MORE likely, because it gives people the false sense of security that they can just trot out the firepower whenever they become too lazy in fulfilling their civic duty to maintain peace and democracy.

The Name:Another thing: How come in these gun debates this sort of electoral argument is always brought up as an argument against gun control itself? Yeah, I know gun control is a losing issue in the midwest and southeast, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

[whispering David Attenborough] Here we can see a North American Spotted Leftist camouflaged among the actual liberals. In a ritualistic display, the Spotted Leftist will self-describe as liberal, and yet make vocalizations that indicate contempt for self governance and pretty much our entire system in general.

USP .45:The Name: Another thing: How come in these gun debates this sort of electoral argument is always brought up as an argument against gun control itself? Yeah, I know gun control is a losing issue in the midwest and southeast, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

[whispering David Attenborough] Here we can see a North American Spotted Leftist camouflaged among the actual liberals. In a ritualistic display, the Spotted Leftist will self-describe as liberal, and yet make vocalizations that indicate contempt for self governance and pretty much our entire system in general.

salvador.hardin:How about we just adopt a new amendment stating that the second amendment is important and every word of it should be honored when interpreting it.

That shouldn't be too controversial right?

So, like I said earlier, DO IT.

Incidentally, every able-bodied man between the ages of 18 and 46 are part of the militia, by statute. Let's enforce that. The women will scream sexism, the older people will scream age discrimination, and NOW and the AARP will spend the GDP of a medium-sized country to ensure that their constituents don't get the shaft. Then we'd have to go through the courts to see how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 effects things, and then we'd have to see if the National Firearms Act of 1934 stands up because they prohibit and/or severely control weapons that would almost certainly be used for defense.

Still think it's a good idea? Then do it. Good luck on your quixotic quest.

The Name:But wouldn't it be a better idea to just, you know, be civically active and informed and work through non-violent means to prevent tyranny to begin with? You could actually make the argument that the second amendment only makes tyranny MORE likely, because it gives people the false sense of security that they can just trot out the firepower whenever they become too lazy in fulfilling their civic duty to maintain peace and democracy.

But our bowling league saw the old and the new Red Dawn movie 12 times total! North Koreans, Chinese, our own government, potato patatoe.

The Name:BarrRepublican: and unfortunately it's going to have the side effect of losing seats in the midwest and southeast. In Iowa, you can get elected championing some pretty liberal stuff, but to touch the guns is to touch the third rail in most of the midwest.

Another thing: How come in these gun debates this sort of electoral argument is always brought up as an argument against gun control itself? Yeah, I know gun control is a losing issue in the midwest and southeast, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Remember: roughly half of the people in this country are rubes to begin with.

Because life is compromise, and sometimes to keep the same-sex marriage you've got to lose the 2nd amendment issue.

The guns that are killing police in NYC and Chicago (just to trot out an overly cliche, trite example) aren't the guns that are being used for game and sport in rural areas. But as of right now, when you say "gun control" and you don't make that differentiation it spells trouble for moderates and blue-dogs in those areas.

A kickass messaging campaign would go a long ways towards this. Blow off the NRA and consider embracing the GOA wholeheartedly, who seem to be more responsible gun owners and less of a shill for the firearms industry. Offer firearms safety courses (hunter's safety courses) throughout these areas to teach safe, responsible firearm ownership. And blanket every form of media available with a simple message explaining that hunting and sport are a part of this country's past, and any gun control legislation being considered is not aimed at these weapons. Open with that, and people will be open to the background checks and banning some of the more insane death-dealers out there today.

Dimensio:The Name: Dimensio: The Name: It should be repealed. Every other first-world country seems to get along just fine without any equivalent clause in its constitution. The only purpose the second amendment serves is to rhetorically block any and all reasonable gun control legislation, even at the local level.

To provide fair consideration: it also blocks unreasonable firearm regulation.

You are mistaken; expanding background checks would not be unreasonable.

Personally, background checks don't bother me because I know I'll pass them. I live in California, strict gun laws are old hat here. But, I can say that there are folks out there who do not want universal checks based on the idea of a national or federal registry. The idea of the big bad goverment having you and your smokewagon on a list really bothers some people. Remember the scene in the original Red Dawn, where the Cuban paratrooper commander is telling his men to head to the court house to get the names of all the gun owners? I know, I know, not a documentary, but I have at least two friends who think that scene is a fantastic indicator of what "they" want to do.

The Name:Dimensio: The Name: It should be repealed. Every other first-world country seems to get along just fine without any equivalent clause in its constitution. The only purpose the second amendment serves is to rhetorically block any and all reasonable gun control legislation, even at the local level.

To provide fair consideration: it also blocks unreasonable firearm regulation.

StoPPeRmobile:The Name: Dimensio: The Name: It should be repealed. Every other first-world country seems to get along just fine without any equivalent clause in its constitution. The only purpose the second amendment serves is to rhetorically block any and all reasonable gun control legislation, even at the local level.

To provide fair consideration: it also blocks unreasonable firearm regulation.

Your_Huckleberry:Remember the scene in the original Red Dawn, where the Cuban paratrooper commander is telling his men to head to the court house to get the names of all the gun owners? I know, I know, not a documentary, but I have at least two friends who think that scene is a fantastic indicator of what "they" want to do.

The Name:USP .45: The Name: Another thing: How come in these gun debates this sort of electoral argument is always brought up as an argument against gun control itself? Yeah, I know gun control is a losing issue in the midwest and southeast, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea.

[whispering David Attenborough] Here we can see a North American Spotted Leftist camouflaged among the actual liberals. In a ritualistic display, the Spotted Leftist will self-describe as liberal, and yet make vocalizations that indicate contempt for self governance and pretty much our entire system in general.

[whispering David Attenborough] His camouflage blown, the Spotted Leftist ejects a stream of illogical ink, analogous to the ink of many cephalopods trying to escape an enemy. The illogical ink feigns concern for voter turnout, despite the fact that moments earlier the Spotted Leftist expressed contempt for the will of the very same electorate.

So, here's a question, if the second amendment can be repealed, what prevents the other amendments in the Bill of Rights from equally being repealed? It really scares me that people want to get rid of a right in the Bill of Rights because of what ever reason. Honestly, the reason why doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that the entire Bill of Rights is important, and if we can get rid of one right, what protects the rest from also getting repealed? Do we want the government to honestly have the power to delete our rights? Shouldn't all these rights be protected equally?

StoPPeRmobile:The Name: Dimensio: The Name: It should be repealed. Every other first-world country seems to get along just fine without any equivalent clause in its constitution. The only purpose the second amendment serves is to rhetorically block any and all reasonable gun control legislation, even at the local level.

To provide fair consideration: it also blocks unreasonable firearm regulation.

An effective method for gun rights activists is to explicitly declare unreasonable policies -- such as a ban on rifles featuring collapsing stocks, pistol grips and threaded barrels -- unacceptable and to work with gun control advocates from there. Unfortunately, the most vocal gun rights advocates are not reasonable and thus their arguments are more likely to make the bad arguments of gun control advocates -- which are unreasonable due to faulty premises rather than due to faulty reasoning -- seem more rational to the public by comparison.

I won't share my opinion on the Second Amendment, but I want to defend Jay Mohr's comedy. I frankly don't give a damn about his political stance, (nor any other celebrity, for that matter) but I love his podcast and his new radio show.

Your_Huckleberry:Dimensio: The Name: Dimensio: The Name: It should be repealed. Every other first-world country seems to get along just fine without any equivalent clause in its constitution. The only purpose the second amendment serves is to rhetorically block any and all reasonable gun control legislation, even at the local level.

To provide fair consideration: it also blocks unreasonable firearm regulation.

You are mistaken; expanding background checks would not be unreasonable.

Personally, background checks don't bother me because I know I'll pass them. I live in California, strict gun laws are old hat here. But, I can say that there are folks out there who do not want universal checks based on the idea of a national or federal registry. The idea of the big bad goverment having you and your smokewagon on a list really bothers some people. Remember the scene in the original Red Dawn, where the Cuban paratrooper commander is telling his men to head to the court house to get the names of all the gun owners? I know, I know, not a documentary, but I have at least two friends who think that scene is a fantastic indicator of what "they" want to do.

BarrRepublican:The Name: BarrRepublican: and unfortunately it's going to have the side effect of losing seats in the midwest and southeast. In Iowa, you can get elected championing some pretty liberal stuff, but to touch the guns is to touch the third rail in most of the midwest.

Another thing: How come in these gun debates this sort of electoral argument is always brought up as an argument against gun control itself? Yeah, I know gun control is a losing issue in the midwest and southeast, but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea. Remember: roughly half of the people in this country are rubes to begin with.

Because life is compromise, and sometimes to keep the same-sex marriage you've got to lose the 2nd amendment issue.

The guns that are killing police in NYC and Chicago (just to trot out an overly cliche, trite example) aren't the guns that are being used for game and sport in rural areas. But as of right now, when you say "gun control" and you don't make that differentiation it spells trouble for moderates and blue-dogs in those areas.

A kickass messaging campaign would go a long ways towards this. Blow off the NRA and consider embracing the GOA wholeheartedly, who seem to be more responsible gun owners and less of a shill for the firearms industry. Offer firearms safety courses (hunter's safety courses) throughout these areas to teach safe, responsible firearm ownership. And blanket every form of media available with a simple message explaining that hunting and sport are a part of this country's past, and any gun control legislation being considered is not aimed at these weapons. Open with that, and people will be open to the background checks and banning some of the more insane death-dealers out there today.

I like that idea. I've never been part of the NRA, but am in GOA. I also think, though, that there are probably folks on the gun control side that specifically want to take on the NRA. LaPierre and the NRA are the big boogymen right now. The only issue with what you say there that I'd point out is that there are firearms(specifially the AR family) that are used for hunting and target shooting, and legislation aimed at them is therefore aimed at hunting and sporting firearms-in that case. Other than that, I like your suggestion.

AdolfOliverPanties:I think it should be amended, updated for the times. I would love to see private gun ownership ended, as I am virulently anti-gun, but I know that will never happen. So amend it (obviously its been done before,) with updates about assault rifles, automatic weapons, high capacity clips and magazines, armor piercing bullets...basically anything that was designed for military or law-enforcement use that goes beyond your basic home protection handgun or hunting rifle/shotgun.

Sadly, even this is farking impossible. We can't even get background checks on nutbags because of the farking asshole NRA, even though over 90% of Americans want them.

I hope Wayne LaPierre is killed with a gun. Not soon; I hope he lives a normal lifespan. But I hope that is the way his life ends; violently, with him shiatting himself in fear.

You know how I know you have no idea what you're talking about and are a complete moron? Let's go through the list one by one.

Assault rifle is pretty much the same as automatic weapon with some cosmetic differences. If you think these aren't heavily regulated and already on a registry with deep background checks... if you mean "high capacity rifle", it doesn't mean what you want it to mean, words have meanings. Also, did you know that there have only been 2 murders with a legally owned NFA firearm? 1 of them was by a cop, good thing you're going to keep those guns off the street. Reason #1

Hi-cap clips and magazines? Sure, I'm down with that. No 33 round mags for your Glock but the 17 round mags are fine, the 19 round mags for my XDm 9 are cool, and the 30 round mags for AR/AK platforms are fine as those are all standard capacity. You can't redefine what something means when it suits you. #2

Armor piercing bullets? What is this, the 80's? All, and I mean nearly ALL rifle bullets are armor piercing (.22, .17 and I'm sure you can find a few others that aren't..). Level II protection isn't designed to protect against rifle fire period, only handguns; you have to wear a plate for that. #3

Anything designed for military use? Okay, my AR15 was not designed for military use, it's for civilian use. The AK47s you see are all civilian versions or they'd be select fire. By what you state, I'm okay with that too. #4

"your basic home protection handgun or hunting rifle/shotgun." How many rounds is okay for home protection? You have some arbitrary number you'd like to throw out there because it sounds good to you? 6? 7? 10? I hunt with my AR15, so it's okay by your definition right? #5

So to summarize what you think is okay because you're a moron who doesn't know what he's talking about: I can have an AR15 with a 30 round magazine, all the bullets I want (since you made it clear hunting rifles are okay that must mean that a smaller powered round like .223 is fine). Thanks, I'm all for your anti-gun plan since it would only ban stupid range toys like 33 round mags and 100 round drums from what I can tell.

I realize that apparently in a few states you have to sell a car to someone with a license, but in Texas that's not a problem. Cars kill far more people, why isn't this mandated? Shouldn't you be scared to get on the road if you're scared of guns as you're far FAR more likely to die? Kids are more likely to die in a swimming pool, if we ban them or make people build fences around them that would save more lives than banning "assault weapons" ever could. Why aren't you pushing for that instead? It's about saving lives right? Not because you're a pansy?

I just can't fathom your desire to be defenseless. Are you that big of a pussy? If you think the war on drugs has been a complete failure, wait until they start bringing guns across the border and only criminals have them. Also, those nightstand pistols you're talking about cause more deaths than "assault rifles" ever have or will and yet you're fine with them being legal apparently. You're completely uninformed and trying to set policy that sounds good to you and as I pointed out above, you completely failed at it by your definitions. It would be like a someone telling you how the internet should be regulated because he saw it in Hackers and The Net and his aunt's friend got her identity stolen.

AeAe:sheep snorter: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. and once America has an Army, the second amendment shall be abolished.

/Unless you are wetting your pants thinking the big black man is gonna come to your home in his big black SUV and break your window and come on in and take it from you, well you might be paranoid.//Sarcasm. How does it work.

What if the government turns on the people? Or do you think that will never happen?

Then the government would still have artillery, flamethrowers, tanks, planes, explosives, cruise missiles and nukes. Oddly, no one is throwing a fit about not being able to similarly arm themselves.

Great Janitor:So, here's a question, if the second amendment can be repealed, what prevents the other amendments in the Bill of Rights from equally being repealed? It really scares me that people want to get rid of a right in the Bill of Rights because of what ever reason. Honestly, the reason why doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that the entire Bill of Rights is important, and if we can get rid of one right, what protects the rest from also getting repealed?

Ugh . . . try, please try to understand this. There is no legal distinction between the first ten amendments and all the other amendments. They can all be repealed or amended through the same process. We've repealed amendments before. There is no slippery slope that kicks in as soon as an amendment is repealed. And what people consider important changes from generation to generation, and the founding fathers put an amendment process IN THE CONSTITUTION so we could change that document as our country changes through the centuries.

Great Janitor:Do we want the government to honestly have the power to delete our rights?

If you believe in democracy, then WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT! How the hell can people say "WE'RE THE GREATEST DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD!" and then in the very same breath worry about "GOVERNMENT" taking away their rights? You can't have it both ways!

fluffy2097:StoPPeRmobile: If I were a dictator it would be the first thing I would do.

I'd buy out all the newspapers.

Information is more important then firepower.

If I were Dictator, I would ban firearms, and shut down the internet until I had 'fixed' google to only display information that I wanted it to display. Unlimited access to the information that I would want to rabble to have. Finally, government ownership of every industry.

Herman Borrach:Then the government would still have artillery, flamethrowers, tanks, planes, explosives, cruise missiles and nukes. Oddly, no one is throwing a fit about not being able to similarly arm themselves.

Because Americans assume that American soldiers would be reticent to murder their own countrymen with flame throwers.

Great Janitor:If I were Dictator, I would ban firearms, and shut down the internet until I had 'fixed' google to only display information that I wanted it to display. Unlimited access to the information that I would want to rabble to have. Finally, government ownership of every industry.

Information first. Information and infrastructure always come first in any war.

Then they won't even know that you took away the guns if you control the flow of information.

They'd just wake up and be criminals that you could arrest without anyone reporting on it.

fluffy2097:Herman Borrach:Then the government would still have artillery, flamethrowers, tanks, planes, explosives, cruise missiles and nukes. Oddly, no one is throwing a fit about not being able to similarly arm themselves.

Because Americans assume that American soldiers would be reticent to murder their own countrymen with flame throwers.

/They also assume correctly.

Yup.

Also please note we use(d) these things in Afghanistan and Iraq and somehow our people still keep getting killed. Plus you can have a flamethrower and a tank and a plane and explosives... I wonder what it's like to be that uninformed about something I voice so many stupid opinions on.